County eyes changing '2050' eastern growth plan

Published: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 4:19 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 4:19 p.m.

SARASOTA COUNTY - Battle lines are drawn again over Sarasota 2050, a growth plan years in the making that was designed to protect large areas of Sarasota County east of Interstate 75 from urban sprawl.

Facts

INTERESTED?

What: The Sarasota County Commission will consider revising Sarasota 2050, a growth management plan that promotes compact “villages” as an alternative to large-lot subdivisions in rural areas.

Why: Developers insist the rules are too stringent and are requesting numerous changes.

When: 1:30 p.m. Wednesday

Where: 1660 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota

Wednesday, the County Commission will consider revisions to Sarasota 2050 that developers, whose village plans have mostly stalled, insist will better enable them to achieve the growth management plan's goals.

Environmental and neighborhood group alliances oppose any changes they think will weaken the plan that is supposed to make self-contained villages a true alternative to the typical suburb fronting a highway, with a retail strip at its entrance.

Q:What is Sarasota 2050?

A: Finalized in 2005 after more than four years of public hearings and an extensive legal challenge, Sarasota 2050 — which cost the county more than $2 million to write and defend — is intended to give the county options for addressing growth as urban areas get built out and more developers look eastward.

Sarasota 2050 presents an alternative to rules that largely have been in place since 1972, when the county used the route announced for the coming southward extension of Interstate 75 to create an urban services boundary. That boundary still separates urban areas to the west that receive county services from rural land east of I-75, where homes can be built on 5-acre or larger lots and must rely on wells and septic tanks.

Sarasota 2050 gives rural developers another option.

Instead of building a big-lot suburb that consumes all of their property, they can transfer development rights for half or more of their land to the remaining part of their property. In exchange, they can put many more homes on the existing land than allowed under the 5-acre rule. In theory, developers benefit and at the same time preserve much larger portions of land for wetlands, wildlife corridors and other environmental benefits.

The 2050 plans calls for villages, creating a diversity of housing types clustered in a walkable setting with a street grid, neighborhood gathering spots and retail cores. The concept stems from New Urbanism, the basis for the design of well-known communities such as Seaside and Celebration.

Q:Where is Sarasota 2050 development allowed?

A: Lakewood Ranch south of University Parkway, Hi-Hat Ranch off State Road 72 and an area composed of properties owned by Palmer Ranch and others.

A scaled-down version of a village is allowed in what the county considers a “semi-rural” area within the urban service boundary and between North Port, Venice and Englewood.

Another scaled-down version, called a “hamlet,” would be allowed closer to the Old Miakka area.

Q:Why do developers want to revise Sarasota 2050?

A: Developers such as Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, which has yet to start the Villages of Lakewood Ranch South that was approved three years ago, and various business groups such as the Gulf Coast Builders Exchange and Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce insist Sarasota 2050 needs to be thoroughly re-examined.

“Although the 2050 Plan may have been well-intended, times have changed and I believe Sarasota County government should and must revise and adjust the 2050 Plan, despite decisions made in good faith by others in the past,” Nick Gladding, Chamber chairman, wrote the commissioners.

So far, the only Sarasota 2050 development to be underway is the 1,999-home Grand Palm by Neal Communities, which broke ground last fall. Grand Palm is a scaled-down version of the village concept at Center Road and River Road.

Q:What are the developers' concerns?

A: Sarasota 2050 comes with a myriad of precise rules pertaining to the layout of a community.

For example, developers want more flexibility in determining the size of “perimeter buffers” that keep villages from being visible from main roads.

They object that a required commercial district must be in a “village center” rather than near the development's periphery, where it could attract customers from outside the village.

They want to be able to offer market studies that show that a village is close enough to retail elsewhere that a village center is unnecessary.

They want required “greenways” of interconnected preserves to count toward “open space” requirements within a village.

They express concerns about the frequency of fiscal reports to prove that a village is “fiscally neutral” and not imposing a burden on existing taxpayers to help pay for its impact on schools, roads and other public services.

Q:Who opposes changes to Sarasota 2050?

A: The Council of Neighborhood Associations, Control Growth Now, Sarasota Audubon Society, Sierra Club, ManaSota-88, Sarasota County Public Interest Coalition and Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government have formed a united front and jointly issued a position paper.

Point by point, they argue against the building industry's suggested revisions — which they describe as “an all-out assault on the public interest protections of Sarasota 2050.”

Calling themselves “public interest advocates,” the environmental and other groups instead are making their own suggestions.

For example, they want increases in the size of “greenbelt preserves” that are supposed to surround the villages. They insist those greenways should not be used for storm-water management.

They also want to prohibit golf courses from counting as “open space” and to get more extensive requirements for tree protection and for affordable housing that must be available for sale and for rent.

They suggest the village area near Palmer Ranch be eliminated, since there are no longer plans to build an I-75 interchange there or a Central Sarasota Parkway connection to the area.

Q:What is the County Commission likely to do?

A: The commission has several options.

It could leave Sarasota 2050 intact and see if developers largely abandon it in favor of the big-lot suburbs the plan is supposed to discourage.

The commissioners could make what they consider minor tweaks that probably would not be enough to satisfy any complaining faction.

County planners, the Planning Commission and the County Commission could engage in a lengthy process of dissecting each element of Sarasota 2050, conducting public hearings and perhaps making significant changes.

The commission could scrap 2050 in its entirety and work on a replacement policy.

<p><em>SARASOTA COUNTY</em> - Battle lines are drawn again over Sarasota 2050, a growth plan years in the making that was designed to protect large areas of Sarasota County east of Interstate 75 from urban sprawl. </p><p>Wednesday, the County Commission will consider revisions to Sarasota 2050 that developers, whose village plans have mostly stalled, insist will better enable them to achieve the growth management plan's goals.</p><p>Environmental and neighborhood group alliances oppose any changes they think will weaken the plan that is supposed to make self-contained villages a true alternative to the typical suburb fronting a highway, with a retail strip at its entrance.</p><p><b>Q:</b> <i>What is Sarasota 2050?</i></p><p><b>A:</b> Finalized in 2005 after more than four years of public hearings and an extensive legal challenge, Sarasota 2050 — which cost the county more than $2 million to write and defend — is intended to give the county options for addressing growth as urban areas get built out and more developers look eastward.</p><p>Sarasota 2050 presents an alternative to rules that largely have been in place since 1972, when the county used the route announced for the coming southward extension of Interstate 75 to create an urban services boundary. That boundary still separates urban areas to the west that receive county services from rural land east of I-75, where homes can be built on 5-acre or larger lots and must rely on wells and septic tanks.</p><p>Sarasota 2050 gives rural developers another option.</p><p>Instead of building a big-lot suburb that consumes all of their property, they can transfer development rights for half or more of their land to the remaining part of their property. In exchange, they can put many more homes on the existing land than allowed under the 5-acre rule. In theory, developers benefit and at the same time preserve much larger portions of land for wetlands, wildlife corridors and other environmental benefits.</p><p>The 2050 plans calls for villages, creating a diversity of housing types clustered in a walkable setting with a street grid, neighborhood gathering spots and retail cores. The concept stems from New Urbanism, the basis for the design of well-known communities such as Seaside and Celebration.</p><p><b>Q:</b> <i>Where is Sarasota 2050 development allowed?</i></p><p><b>A:</b> Lakewood Ranch south of University Parkway, Hi-Hat Ranch off State Road 72 and an area composed of properties owned by Palmer Ranch and others.</p><p>A scaled-down version of a village is allowed in what the county considers a “semi-rural” area within the urban service boundary and between North Port, Venice and Englewood.</p><p>Another scaled-down version, called a “hamlet,” would be allowed closer to the Old Miakka area.</p><p><b>Q:</b> <i>Why do developers want to revise Sarasota 2050?</i></p><p><b>A:</b> Developers such as Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, which has yet to start the Villages of Lakewood Ranch South that was approved three years ago, and various business groups such as the Gulf Coast Builders Exchange and Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce insist Sarasota 2050 needs to be thoroughly re-examined.</p><p>“Although the 2050 Plan may have been well-intended, times have changed and I believe Sarasota County government should and must revise and adjust the 2050 Plan, despite decisions made in good faith by others in the past,” Nick Gladding, Chamber chairman, wrote the commissioners.</p><p>So far, the only Sarasota 2050 development to be underway is the 1,999-home Grand Palm by Neal Communities, which broke ground last fall. Grand Palm is a scaled-down version of the village concept at Center Road and River Road.</p><p><b>Q:</b> <i>What are the developers' concerns?</i></p><p><b>A:</b> Sarasota 2050 comes with a myriad of precise rules pertaining to the layout of a community.</p><p>For example, developers want more flexibility in determining the size of “perimeter buffers” that keep villages from being visible from main roads.</p><p>They object that a required commercial district must be in a “village center” rather than near the development's periphery, where it could attract customers from outside the village.</p><p>They want to be able to offer market studies that show that a village is close enough to retail elsewhere that a village center is unnecessary.</p><p>They want required “greenways” of interconnected preserves to count toward “open space” requirements within a village.</p><p>They express concerns about the frequency of fiscal reports to prove that a village is “fiscally neutral” and not imposing a burden on existing taxpayers to help pay for its impact on schools, roads and other public services.</p><p><b>Q:</b> <i>Who opposes changes to Sarasota 2050?</i></p><p><b>A:</b> The Council of Neighborhood Associations, Control Growth Now, Sarasota Audubon Society, Sierra Club, ManaSota-88, Sarasota County Public Interest Coalition and Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government have formed a united front and jointly issued a position paper.</p><p>Point by point, they argue against the building industry's suggested revisions — which they describe as “an all-out assault on the public interest protections of Sarasota 2050.”</p><p>Calling themselves “public interest advocates,” the environmental and other groups instead are making their own suggestions.</p><p>For example, they want increases in the size of “greenbelt preserves” that are supposed to surround the villages. They insist those greenways should not be used for storm-water management.</p><p>They also want to prohibit golf courses from counting as “open space” and to get more extensive requirements for tree protection and for affordable housing that must be available for sale and for rent.</p><p>They suggest the village area near Palmer Ranch be eliminated, since there are no longer plans to build an I-75 interchange there or a Central Sarasota Parkway connection to the area.</p><p><b>Q:</b> <i>What is the County Commission likely to do?</i></p><p><b>A:</b> The commission has several options.</p><p>It could leave Sarasota 2050 intact and see if developers largely abandon it in favor of the big-lot suburbs the plan is supposed to discourage.</p><p>The commissioners could make what they consider minor tweaks that probably would not be enough to satisfy any complaining faction.</p><p>County planners, the Planning Commission and the County Commission could engage in a lengthy process of dissecting each element of Sarasota 2050, conducting public hearings and perhaps making significant changes.</p><p>The commission could scrap 2050 in its entirety and work on a replacement policy.</p>